- From: Ben Laurie <ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:57:48 +0100 (BST)
- To: ben@algroup.co.uk
- Cc: luotonen@netscape.com, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Ben Laurie wrote: > > Ari Luotonen wrote: > > > > > > > - HTTP/1.1 & digest: > > > Expecting RFC Real Soon Now. > > > Complaints, editorial advice, ambiguities welcome. > > > > 13.1.2 Warnings says: > > > > ... > > Warnings are always cachable, because they never weaken the transparency > > of a response. This means that warnings can be passed to HTTP/1.0 caches > > without danger; such caches will simply pass the warning along as an > > entity-header in the response. > > ... > > > > This is not right. HTTP/1.0 cache will cache this header, and the > > Warning will remain in the cache file even if the entity is up-to-date > > checked later. So clients could e.g. see a warning saying that the > > response may be stale even if the proxy just did an up-to-date check > > and it was ok. > > Wouldn't that mean that the HTTP/1.0 cache was out-of-date wrt the upstream > cache (and hence would refetch and lose the warning header)? Or am I missing > something? Before anyone else brings me down to Earth, I'll admit I am missing something. Of course, the upstream cache may be a different one next time, or any one of a whole host of possibilities too tedious to enumerate. This would appear to be a problem. Cheers, Ben. -- Ben Laurie Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435 Freelance Consultant and Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472 Technical Director Email: ben@algroup.co.uk A.L. Digital Ltd, URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk London, England. Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
Received on Thursday, 17 October 1996 12:58:11 UTC